HassleCat

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PMNumber of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Why are some (not all) Clinton supporters so aggressively nasty? Only they can tell you for sure, but I will venture a guess. They know their candidate can win just by hanging on, and it's unlikely Bernie can knock Hillary off track in closed primaries. But it's not going to be much fun. Bernie came very close, closer than anyone predicted when this whole thing began. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, nothing more than a succession of photo ops and fundraising appearances. Now it’s an unpleasant slog, responding to accusation of taking corporate money, swatting at some old gadfly who came from nowhere to challenge the established order. His effort has become some kind of movement, an expression of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. The implications for Clinton are fairly serious.

First, if she tries running too far to the right, she will lose the election. It's clear there are very large numbers, make that VERY large numbers, of independents and disaffected Democrats who are tired of the third way, tired of candidates who take money from the wrong people, tired of capturing the presidency and losing more and more elections down ballot. If these voters don’t see some serious discussion of progressive issues, they will neglect to vote. That means Clinton could lose, and it certainly means Democrats would suffer more defeats at the state and local level. If Clinton doesn't have some coat tails, all that talk about being a real Democrat isn't going to mean much. Trying to unify the party isn't going to be easy, and many people are going to be very annoyed if there is even a hint that voters owe it to the party, have no alternative, etc.

Second, Clinton better deliver on all those promises. "I'm the pragmatic progressive, the one who gets things done." Well, things better get done, then. Many voters will not accept excuses about Republican obstructionists. "I get things done," means exactly that. It doesn't mean, "I get things done unless the Republicans make it difficult." Clinton is selling herself as a president who accomplishes things against the odds, although she hasn't said if she plans to neutralize the GOP, kiss up to them, kick their asses, or hire a hit man. If she can't get things done, voters aren't going to give her a pass. They're going to vote for the progressive Democrat who runs against her in the primary. I don't know who that might be, but there will be one if Clinton fails to deliver.

So I’m guessing Clinton supporters are grumpy because they realize we’re just beginning an unpleasant slog through the general election, and possibly the presidency. If Clinton wins the general the same way she’s winning the primaries, we’re in for major unhappiness. Can you imagine if Clinton achieves a weak victory against a weak Republican? Neither Trump nor Cruz could be considered a strong candidate. One is a joke, and the other is a bad joke. If it gets really disastrous, Republicans might gain seats in Congress, in which case the obstructionism we see now would look like a walk in the park. Yes, this makes me unhappy, but I’m not heavily invested in the candidate who might be looking at a bleak future. For Clinton’s more enthusiastic supporters, the general election victory might be the only bright spot in the next five years. In fact, it’s looking more and more likely. I guess I'd be grumpy, too, if that's all I had to look forward to.

So are many other people who have long records of public service and a history of accomplishments. Henry Kissinger comes to mind. I don't think I would want someone like Henry Kissinger as president. When someone has a ten page CV, it's a good idea to look at some of the items in detail, not just the thickness of the re'sume'.

Release the transcripts! Release the tax returns! We demand them! OK, fine. Demand anything you want. It would be nice to see them, and I hope the candidates provide them, but it's not required. All this back and forth is just noise. Remember this? "Show us the birth certificate!"

Hillary said this to an audience in Eau Claire. (it's in Wisconsin) Big goals. I think people in Eau Claire would be happy with big goals. People as far away as Elk Mound and Fall Creek would be happy with big goals. I wonder what some of those big goals might be. Well, I feel better just knowing she is thinking of doing big things. I'm sure we'll get to the specifics eventually.

"I believe with all my heart that America's best days can be ahead of us if we roll up our sleeves, we set some big goals again, we start treating each other with respect and kindness and work towards those goals."

According to Clinton supporters here on DU, it's all over and there is no way Bernie could deny Hillary the nomination. This would be consistent with what I saw when I caucused today in Washington. The Clinton campaign made little effort to get people to the caucus, and it was 3 to 1 in Bernie's favor. This did not seem to bother the Clinton people at all, so I'm guessing they're confident Hillary will pick up enough delegates without actually winning the remaining states. As long as she breaks even in some, and loses others by a reasonable margin, she's in.

The odd thing about this is it seems a strange way to show enthusiasm for a candidate. For weeks, Clinton supporters have been licking their lips at the prospect of the Sanders campaign shutting down, but they're not delivering the knockout punch. And the tone has changed. But is this real? Remember the movie Pee Wee's Big Adventure? "I meant to do that!" Hillary is going to cross the finish line with just a few more delegates than she needs, and her supporters are saying, "Oh, yes. This is the way we planned it all along." And there is the possibility it won't work, if today is any indication.

Canadian news is not like our news. When dealing with somebody like Trump, they don't try to be "fair" by doing old he said, she said routine. They let the viewer know, with no doubt at all, that Trump is crazy and dangerous, as well as being a total jerk and a worthless human being. The segment is called "The Fire Breather" by The Fifth Estate, a CTV organization. It's very entertaining, well worth watching.

This is the year of the angry white man, according to the source linked below. Thanks to the Clinton group for alerting us to this. Anyway, it's not clear why we're angry. It's also not clear why the previous "year of the angry white man" events are so quickly forgotten. What is clear, according to the article, is that Sanders getting angry white male (AWM) is bad because it negates Clinton's advantage among women and minority voters. See how that works? If a candidate appeals to women and minorities, and depends on those demographics to win, that's good, probably because we assume that candidate will do something special or meaningful for the voters who supporter him or her. If another candidate vacuums up the remaining votes, the AWM votes, that's bad, probably because we can assume that candidate will do something to hurt women and minorities.

Welcome to racial politics, folks. If you want to see it done right, go back and read some of Marion Berry's speeches. What we're seeing here is just the tip of the iceberg, because mainstream candidates who play racial politics don't want to appear to be playing racial politics. But it still boils down to, "You better vote for me because the other candidate is supported by angry white men."

Right up front, I am a Sanders supporter, and I want him to be our nominee, no matter what the consequences. If he does gain the nomination, there is the possibility of a very bad outcome in the general election.

It's nothing the Republicans could do to him. The clown car is in the ditch very deep, and there's no sign of a tow truck on the horizon. The death blow would come from inside our party. Remember, this is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Sanders calls it a revolution, and the DNC doesn't know what to call it, but they realize allowing Sanders to win the presidency would end the nice deal they have going for themselves, derail their gravy train, push many of them into obscurity, make the whole third way strategy look bogus, and generally turn the established party structure inside out. This is exactly what many of us would like to see, and exactly what the third way wing of the party, meaning many Democrats, cannot allow.

Am I suggesting a significant number of Democrats would work to make sure Sanders loses the general election? Damn right I am. When push comes to shove, their personal well being is more important than the presidency, federal judges, foreign policy, immigration reform, police and justice reform, or anything else. Who are they, and how many of them are there? I don't know, but I remember Eugene McCarthy campaigning for Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and I don't even know what Carter did to anger McCarthy. Whatever it was, it was small potatoes compared to the anger and frustration many Democrats would feel if they lost control of the party to an "avowed socialist." There would be enough of them to pose a serious threat of defeating Sanders in the general election, in order to discredit the Sanders revolution and regain control of the party.

What might save Sanders in the face of such an insiders' coup? Independents and disenchanted Republicans. Many people are angry at the system that keeps giving them what they consider as a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. They would vote for Sanders simply because he is neither of those. It would be scary, but it would be interesting. And it might be exactly what we need to put an end to these political dynasties we get so often.

There was a post here that was locked for being off topic, but it did make a couple good points about the primaries and some of the fallout from the primaries. I thought it would be useful to paraphrase and discuss the points as they relate to the Democratic primary election.

First, many of us have not yet voted, and we would like to think our opinions and our votes mean something. In any primary election, there is always a push by the front runner to declare the contest over, to get the landslide moving faster. In our party, there is some urgency about this because we are afraid of spending all our money and energy before we face the Republicans. That's understandable, but we need to respect the voters and their opportunity to make their voices heard.

Second, and related to the first point, is the tendency of the party to choose a favorite and throw the weight of the party organization behind the favorite. It happens all the time, so I guess it's not unreasonable, but it contributes to casting aspersions on individual Democrats and their loyalty to the party. "If you were a real Democrat, you would be more positive about supporting our nominee, whoever that is." OK, but that makes it more difficult to oppose the party favorite. If you advocate voting for the insurgent, you're saying, in effect, "Don't vote for the party favorite." This creates all sorts of suspicion and bad feelings, with the party demanding that supporters of the insurgent declare themselves yellow dog Democrats, and said supporters resisting and getting rebellious.

The implication of course, is that we should all just chill out and let the process run its course. Easier said than done. Hang in there, everybody, and try to keep a lid on the suspicion and aggression directed at the other camp.